Scroll To Top

Sunday, July 12, 2015

There's only a two year reprieve if the sun gets cold - though northern countries might feel it

Sou | 9:48 PM Go to the first of 45 comments. Add a comment

Surprisingly, WUWT has foregone the temptation to tell the people who live in the denier bubble that we're heading for an ice age and the Thames is about to freeze up. Then again, Anthony hasn't mentioned any of the extreme weather of the past few weeks either. He might be busy attending to his big announcement that he promised would arrive this last week, but didn't.

About the sun - others haven't been so reticent. The Royal Astronomical Society (not to be confused with the Royal Society) put out a press release about a conference paper that was apparently presented at the National Astronomy Meeting in Wales earlier this week. It looks as if it's part of a long time project of Prof Valentina Zharkova, of the Department of Mathematics and Information Sciences at Northumbria University.

UPDATE:  See below. I've just listened to a NZ Radio National interview with Valentina Zharkova (h/t Hot Topic NZ). She comes across as another "it's the sun" person who doesn't understand climate. So she isn't to be taken seriously when it comes to climate. That doesn't mean that she's wrong about her magnetic harmonic dynamo theory. It does mean she is way out in her estimate of what it will mean for climate. It's probably wise to wait for her published paper and see if it stands scrutiny. Meanwhile anything she says about climate is to be ignored.
Sou - 11:03 am 13 July 2015

Since there isn't a published paper (just a conference paper), the main clues about the findings are from the press release.

Montage of images of solar activity between August 1991 and September 2001. Credit: Yohkoh/ISAS/Lockheed-Martin/NAOJ/U. Tokyo/NASA. 
The press release starts off with:
A new model of the Sun’s solar cycle is producing unprecedentedly accurate predictions of irregularities within the Sun’s 11-year heartbeat. The model draws on dynamo effects in two layers of the Sun, one close to the surface and one deep within its convection zone. Predictions from the model suggest that solar activity will fall by 60 per cent during the 2030s to conditions last seen during the ‘mini ice age’ that began in 1645. Results will be presented today by Prof Valentina Zharkova at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno.

When it says "will fall by 60%" it's not saying the incoming solar radiation will drop from an average (over the earth's top of atmosphere) from 340 Wm-2 to 204 Wm-2. At least I can't imagine that's what they mean. (That would be alarmist!)

What Prof Zharkova says she's found is a second dynamo. (You knew there was was a first dynamo, didn't you. If so, you are better read than I am.)
Many solar physicists have put the cause of the solar cycle down to a dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep within the Sun. Now, Zharkova and her colleagues have found that adding a second dynamo, close to the surface, completes the picture with surprising accuracy.
Think harmonics. The idea is that these two dynamos both have roughly eleven year cycles but they aren't perfectly synchronised. Every so often they'll be aligned such that they'll get completely out of synch with each other, and this will mean the sun doesn't emit as much radiation. The scientists figured this out by looking at the magnetic field.
“In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other – peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other. We predict that this will lead to the properties of a ‘Maunder minimum’,” said Zharkova. “Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago.”

I've written a few times before about what is expected to happen if the sun reduced its output to what is known as a Grand Minimum.  Turns out there are a couple of new papers on the subject (h/t TB).

Chances of a lull in the sun now at 15 to 20%

The first paper I'll mention was published in Nature Communications last month. First up, the authors say the chance of a lull in solar activity has increased from around 8% a couple of years ago to  between 15 and 20% now. Seeing that deniers don't want to do anything about global warming, which has proven to be 100% happening and probably 99.99% that it will continue while we keep adding CO2 to the air, I don't imagine a 15 to 20% chance of a lull in the sun will faze them. But I won't bet my life on that. After all, they aren't exactly rational when it comes to risk, and they do get really, really alarmed at the slightest sign of a chilly autumn day.

What will a lull in the sun mean while the world is warming? From the global perspective, not much at all. Apparently it will delay warming by a couple of years. That's all. The scientists did two experiments and found:
The relative annual global mean near-surface temperature change for the period 2050–2099 is a cooling of 0.13 and 0.12 °C for EXPT-A and EXPT-B, respectively. This offsets or delays the global warming trend by ~2 years and is small compared with the modelled global warming. 

It's not that simple though. Is it ever? Here's the technical explanation of how it would affect the climate through a change in surface pressure, via heating of the stratosphere:
... variability in ultraviolet solar irradiance has been linked to changes in surface pressure that resemble the Arctic and North Atlantic Oscillations (AO/NAO)8, 9, 10 and studies of both the 11-year solar cycle11, 12 and centennial timescales13 suggest the potential for larger regional effects. The mechanism for these changes is via a stratospheric pathway, a so-called ‘top-down’ mechanism, and involves altered heating of the stratosphere by solar ultraviolet irradiance.
Anomalous temperatures in the region of the tropical stratopause give rise to changes in the subtropical stratospheric winds, in geostrophic balance with the modified equator-to-pole temperature gradient. This signal then propagates poleward and downward and is amplified by altered planetary wave activity8 before being communicated throughout the depth of the troposphere in the Pacific and Atlantic basins14. This mechanism can also drive changes in tropical lower stratosphere temperatures, which can additionally affect the troposphere15. 
Here's a table from the paper, showing the cooling impact in the northern hemisphere from two experiments, but note that it's relative to the control of continuing on the RCP8.5 pathway. So it's not a comparison with recent weather. I'd guess it would be still quite a bit warmer than now.

Mean winter (December to February) regional near-surface temperature change (°C, land points only) for 2050–2099 for EXPT-A and EXPT-B relative to CTRL-8.5. Significance with a 90% confidence interval is shown in bold.
North Europe
Western North America
North Asia
Central North America
Eastern North America

The paper has a lot more information about potential impact in different regions. Really, all this means is that projections would need to allow for a negative solar forcing as well as a positive greenhouse forcing. And the solar forcing wouldn't cancel out the greenhouse forcing, it will most likely have different impacts in different parts of the world though. The scientists expect the impacts would reverse again once the sun became more active again. So it would only be a temporary blip from a decades to centuries perspective. However a less active sun could stay that way for a couple of generations. So on human time scales it could be significant.

Meehl et al (2013) did a modeling exercise too. Except their model was optimistically run with RCP4.5 forcings. Anyway, they found a decrease below the expected warming (not from now) of a few tenths of a degree Celsius. Like all the others, once the sun picked up again it was back to business as usual. In other words, it delayed warming by a very little bit. That's all.

An earlier paper by JG Anet and co (2011) also found a reduction in global warming by only about 0.2C. Barely enough to notice given how much hotter it's going to get. That paper also warned that a less active sun might delay the recovery of stratospheric ozone, which would not be good.

A couple of years ago solar physicist Mike Lockwood asked the question about UV and low sunspot activity. His paper is worth reading, if only to get an appreciation of how difficult it is to compare different periods of solar activity and different wavelengths over time. The problems seem to be mainly linked to instrument calibration, with different instruments (and possible even the same instruments changing over time), making it very difficult. He also mentions the stratospheric changes and the possible impact at the regional level, but said that changes to the stratosphere don't necessarily drive changes down where we live. For example, he wrote:
The possibility of long‐term change in UV solar irradiance has considerable implications for understanding regional climate change in some parts of the world. Solar UV changes have considerable effect on the distribution of temperatures and winds in the stratosphere [see review by Gray et al., 2010]. There is growing evidence that dynamical coupling across the tropopause means that these stratospheric changes can have a disproportionate influence on the underlying troposphere (“top down” solar effects) [e.g., Matthes et al., 2006]. Tropospheric jet streams have been predicted to be particularly sensitive to the solar forcing of the stratosphere [Haigh, 2003]. Disturbances to the stratospheric polar vortex [Gray et al., 2004], which are observed to propagate downward and evolve into perturbations to the tropospheric jets [Baldwin and Dunkerton, 1999], have been proposed as a potential mechanism [see Gray et al., 2010]. However, the coupled nature of these stratospheric/ tropospheric disturbances means that the fact that the disturbances appear first in the stratosphere does not necessarily mean that the stratosphere changes are driving those in the troposphere below.... 

Summing up - it won't stop global warming

To sum up, if the sun fades over the next few years, it won't stop global warming. It will likely make a difference at the local level. In the northern hemisphere changes may be linked with changes in the North Atlantic (and possibly the Pacific). Where I live, if there are delays in the recovery of the ozone hole over Antarctica, then we can expect more of the same impact as we've been getting - because it affects the winds etc.

Wiley Publishing website is down at the moment, so I can't link directly to some of the references. I'll update them when it gets back on line.

Update: Interview with Valentina Zharkova from Radio National NZ

Whether Zharkova's dynamic magnetic cycles are real or not, she seems to know next to nothing about climate, as can be seen from this interview with Radio National New Zealand. (She probably knows less about climate than even the Radio National interviewer.)
Radio National: What is the effect going to be on the earth's climate.

Zharkova: Well, so um, what will happen in the cycle 25 and 26 is these waves will be separated into the opposite hemispheres which means they will not be able to interact. Which means that there will be less sunspots and less solar activity and the solar irradiance which comes to the earth will drop to the level that say like the Maunder Minima in 1645-1700, which was about 3 W/m2 reduced irradiance from the sun.

In the 17th century it led to strong winters and to very cold summers as well. But the Maunder minimum at that time lasted for about five solar cycles, about 50 or 60 years. The upcoming Maunder minimum will be only about three cycles because the sun will quicker pick up activity. Will be cycle 25, 26 and 27 and then the sun will come back again. So we hope it will not be that cold.

Radio National: How cold do you think it could be getting then?
In this next paragraph, Zharkova overestimates the global impact by about 1.8C (out of 2C) and predicts a short ice age will cometh
Zharkova: Um I suspect, we didn't do that estimation. I know the people who do planetary investigations they did. But if the estimation done for the 17th century are correct. So it will be temperature less irradiance by 3 W/m2 which gives you a decrease of the temperature probably a couple of degrees. I don't know umm.

Radio National: So is that effectively going to offset what we've been hearing about from the greenhouse gas climate change where any temperature rise between say two and four degrees is being talked about.

It's this next para when Zharkova shows herself as a probable greenhouse effect denier and an "it's the sun"er, talking about Mars and Jupiter and "showing who is right" - as if she can't be right about the sun if climate scientists are right about greenhouse gases. (They could all be right.)

Zharkova: (Chuckle) I could say this for sure because those people something for this news they started to bombarding me with are you claiming that it will be offsetting. I said look. We are now in the hand of the times, the time is a virtue. So that time will show us who is right. But I believe because there is also increase, for example the polar caps of Mars are melting simultaneously with our global warming. Or the typhoons appear on Jupiter at the same time. So the influence of the solar activity is very strong. But because I don't do atmospheric research I can't say for sure how it will respond. But...

Perhaps it was at this point that the Radio National interviewer realised she was talking to a climate science denier, because she promptly wrapped up the interview.
Radio National: Fifteen years and we'll have to find out. Thank you very much for your time.
Added by Sou 11:54 am 13 July 2015 

What deniers and sensationalist press are saying

Although (so far) WUWT hasn't touched this one, which is surprising, some of the usual scoundrels have been having a field day resurrecting alarmist ice age cometh myths. Here's a sample of some of the headlines:

Alarmist Headlines July 2015

References and further reading

Most of these are also listed on the new Climate Topics page I've set up.

Ineson, Sarah, Amanda C. Maycock, Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jerald W. Harder, Jeff R. Knight, Mike Lockwood, James C. Manners, and Richard A. Wood. "Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum." Nature communications 6 (2015). doi:10.1038/ncomms8535 (open access)
Maycock, A. C., S. Ineson, L. J. Gray, A. A. Scaife, J. A. Anstey, M. Lockwood, N. Butchart, S. C. Hardiman, D. M. Mitchell, and S. M. Osprey. "Possible impacts of a future Grand Solar Minimum on climate: Stratospheric and global circulation changes." Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (2015).  DOI: 10.1002/2014JD022022 (open access)

Anet, J. G., E. V. Rozanov, S. Muthers, T. Peter, S. Brönnimann, F. Arfeuille, J. Beer et al. "Impact of a potential 21st century “grand solar minimum” on surface temperatures and stratospheric ozone." Geophysical Research Letters 40, no. 16 (2013): 4420-4425. doi:10.1002/grl.50806, 2013 (pdf here)

Lockwood, Mike. "Was UV spectral solar irradiance lower during the recent low sunspot minimum?." Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012) 116, no. D16 (2011). DOI: (pdf here)

Meehl, Gerald A., Julie M. Arblaster, and Daniel R. Marsh. "Could a future “Grand Solar Minimum” like the Maunder Minimum stop global warming?." Geophysical Research Letters 40, no. 9 (2013): 1789-1793.

Feulner, Georg, and Stefan Rahmstorf. "On the effect of a new grand minimum of solar activity on the future climate on Earth." Geophysical Research Letters37, no. 5 (2010). DOI: 10.1029/2010GL042710 (open access)

What if the Sun went into a new Grand Minimum? RealClimate article from 2011 about Fuelner and Rahmstorf 2010

Ineson, Sarah, Amanda C. Maycock, Lesley J. Gray, Adam A. Scaife, Nick J. Dunstone, Jerald W. Harder, Jeff R. Knight, Mike Lockwood, James C. Manners, and Richard A. Wood. "Regional climate impacts of a possible future grand solar minimum." Nature communications 6 (2015). doi:10.1038/ncomms8535 (open access)

What will happen during a new Maunder Minimum? Climate dialogue discussion October 2014, with Mike Lockwood (UK), Nicola Scafetta (US), Jan-Erik Solheim (NO), José Vaquero (ES) and Ilya Usoskin (FI).

From Blogs


  1. The RAS paper seems to me to have a worrying similarity to those 'studies' where somebody uses enough terms (without any physical basis for those terms) to get a good curve fit to the global temperature record and then uses that fit to predict an ice age. Is there any basis for this 'second dynamo' other than a 'better fit'?

    1. It'll be interesting to find out what solar physicists think of her idea. I've not seen any comment in the media. A lot of the articles in the press are focusing on her climate denial more than her dynamo theory. Whatever sells I suppose.

  2. Zharkova & al seem to be using a model. Aren't all the models wrong? Or does that only apply to the ones that give the outcome the deniers don't want to hear?

    They only studied three cycles of the Sun and then feel they can predict the next two cycles. Shame there isn't a paper as I suspect it will reveal a rather large range of possible outcomes.

    As for the Thames freezing, it depends where you are talking about but most people would associate the river as it goes through London. It is unlikely to freeze right the way across there but further upstream it is possible. There was certainly a frozen Thames at Windsor in 1962-3.

  3. New solar models to predict sunspot cycles come out from time to time. Not much luck so far.

    I don't care for this "Maunder Minimum" thing, the sunspot counts appeared normal or even high just prior - maybe there was no warning before hand.

    I like the LIA even less - it appears it was colder on average in places, except for when it was warmer. And they seem to have problems pinning down the years the LIA started and finished.

  4. Anything that delays the rise in temperature due to our carbon emissions would of course be welcome, in that it would give us a little bit more time to implement necessary change.

    At the same time though, our species' capacity for procrastination and self-deception seems to be unbounded.

    1. "We need to get some broad based support,
      to capture the public's imagination...
      So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
      make simplified, dramatic statements
      and make little mention of any doubts...
      Each of us has to decide what the right balance
      is between being effective and being honest."
      - Prof. Stephen Schneider,
      Stanford Professor of Climatology,
      lead author of many IPCC reports

    2. Anonymous is exemplifying David Sanger's comment, or is a deliberate deceiver (ie liar denier), or is a wilful denier, or is all of these. There is no other option.

      How do I know? Firstly it's because he or she left off important parts from the quote, secondly she (or he) didn't link to the source, thirdly anonymous must know that the revered, hallowed, late Professor Schneider was supremely ethical and known for his openness and honesty - qualities science deniers lack:

      Here is the quote with the missing segment returned, from a reliable source - Professor Schneider in "Don’t bet all environmental changes will be beneficial." APS News 5, no. 5 (1996).:

      On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both.

      The behaviour of climate science deniers disgusts me. (See Kaitlin Alexander's article on the subject, too.)

    3. As I've said before, comments like those made by anonymous bring up a simple question: Ignorant, stupid, evil, or insane? Obviously anon fits into one of these categories, but we have too little info at this point to make an accurate diagnosis.

  5. Greenhouse effect deniers and climate change/global warming deniers will have not kittens but cows one this is fully operational:

    It's a shame that we don't have it today, to rub in the face of the psychopathic ultra-conservative government of Australia which has just banned the Clean Energy Finance Corporation from funding practical clean energy:

  6. I've added an update to the article. I've transcribed an interview by Radio National NZ with Valentina Zharkova. (h/t Hot Topic NZ) Looks as if she's a climate science denier which detracts from her credibility. It shouldn't make any difference to her theory - but given her rejection of climate science, I suggest waiting till the solar experts take a look at her solar theory.

    See here.

    1. That was a very terrifying transcription, Sou. It went full, "Mars is warming too". I was not expecting that.

    2. I see Pluto has already lost its ice caps. Bert

    3. Yep - looks as if she's vying with Willie Soon for the top spot on the "it's the sun" denier ladder. Pity, because she risks destroying any credibility she might have in unrelated fields (like solar physics) too. Not that I know if she has any credibility there either.

    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    5. "It went full, "Mars is warming too". I was not expecting that."

      I was, instantaneously. There's always a distinct smell to climate revisionism. It's always the same tripe.

      Another scientist down the drain of corruption.

    6. I deleted my comment, it was unfair.

      Reading some other stuff it does appear she had some views about solar system warming etc but she was honest and said it was not her field on how the earth would respond.

      I have anecdotal evidence that she did not mention a "mini ice age" etc - that got made up later.

    7. Rather a faux pas. But I decided much the same. Been a bit too harsh this time.

  7. I'm curious about her basis for the value of 3 W/m2 reduction of solar radiation during the LIA. That's quite a bit larger than most recent estimates.

    1. I suspect it came from the same place as her notion of a two degree drop in global surface temperature. That is, her over-active denier-influenced imagination. I don't think there is any physical basis for her idea.

      In any case, the LIA isn't attributed to the sun - or not mainly, AFAIK. That's just another denier meme.

    2. It is hard to even find the LIA in the Hockey Stick temperature reconstructions.

  8. I'm uncertain whether this is just ignorance on her part or climate denialism. Not, as we all know, that the two conditions are necessarily exclusive, of course. If she were a denier, I would have expected her to have had better answers than she gave about the influence of a Maunder event on global temperatures.

    I get the impression that she naïvely thought that talking about the Little Ice Age would garner her work some attention, without realizing that this is also going to get her harsh criticism from anyone who knows anything about climate.

    1. You could be right, Andy. On the other hand, her reference to Mars and Jupiter, combined with her gross inflation of the climate impact, suggests to me that it's more than publicity-seeking.

      It looks as if she's given support to all the headlines about Thames freezing over, which a serious scientist would be hitting on the head quick smart.

      There's no excuse for not understanding the basics of climate science these days. Less of an excuse if you're an academic and have even easier access to the scientific literature. She could have walked up the hallway and checked with a climate scientist if she was too lazy to read the literature.

      (I'm noticing that more and more climate-related papers are open access these days, which gives her less of an excuse.)

    2. My thoughts exactly. She has dug herself into a very deep hole.

  9. Here is a comprehensive piece from Professor Mike Lockwood written in response to another set of "ice age cometh" articles back in 2013 which misrepresented him.

    "So what do we think the effect of a return to Maunder minimum conditions on global mean temperatures would be? The answer is very little."

    "We found the likely reduction in warming by 2100 would be between 0.06 and 0.1 degrees Celsius, a very small fraction of the warming we're due to experience as a result of human activity. Other scientists such as Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf from Potsdam, Germany had reached very similar conclusions."

  10. Sou, I've learned to listen to Martin Armstrong over the years. I don't always agree with everything he says and have found a couple of small political errors, but his forecasting has very seldom ever been off the mark, as far as I know.

    ...Our model tracks everything including climate for that too is a major influence within the development if the global economy. It just seems that whatever could go wrong is going to go wrong in the coming 26 years from 2007 in many areas so the other side of 2032.95 is going to be a different world. BTW, Global Warming peaked in 2007...

    The story of espionage and duplicity that financial adviser Martin Armstrong relates in Marcus Vetter's documentary The Forecaster is as serpentine and fascinating as a John le Carré novel. Its narrative thread convincingly weaves multiple financial collapses, the ouster of Boris Yeltsin and the rise of the Putin oligarchy around Armstrong's life's work — a mathematical model that predicts market peaks and collapses and, allegedly, the wars that accompany both.

    Martin's Economic Confidence Model tracks 26 market panics over 224 years, applies some arithmetic and extrudes a market cycle based on pi. Apparently! His published work from the 1980s to the present is uncanny in its accurate predictions of the market crash of 1987, the Soviet collapse, the first Gulf War and the housing collapse of 2007. 

    Director Vetter's film, which includes Armstrong's preposterous 11-year incarceration on contempt charges for refusing to turn over his source code, includes a lot of Ken Burns–style pans across scary-looking graphs of money apocalypses past and future, as well as interviews with Armstrong's many supporters, all set to a pensive soundtrack of ominous tones.

    With his interpretation of global events, Armstrong tells one hell of a good story. Is any of it true? All of it, including his computer model, is built on the tectonically immovable bedrock of human corruption, so it's certainly plausible. Spoiler: The world economy is going to experience a "sovereign-debt big bang" sometime in October 2015, according to Armstrong's model, so this will provide another validating data point if it happens.

    1. I think that's the same Martin Armstrong I came across at HotCopper (share trading forum). I don't put any faith in him or his "models'. Sorry. No more than I do with Steve Keen and other people who trade on financial ruin stories. (Eventually the stock market / housing market dives and they claim they forecast it but just got the timing wrong.

      Share markets (and economics to some extent) is tied up with human behaviour and expectations. So when someone who has a following says "sell" then people sell, thus fulfilling their "prophecy".

      Climate is different. It will only follow physics, chemistry and biology - it doesn't care tuppence for human expectations.

      Also, he seems to be a climate science denier.

    2. Bert from ElthamJuly 13, 2015 at 3:17 PM

      A bit like a financial advisor on 3LO who bought lots of penny dreadfuls and then advised the listeners to invest so driving up the price. He would then unload. He was busted as far as I remember. He had the same surname as 007. Bert


    4. "BTW, Global Warming peaked in 2007..." - and dump.

    5. "With four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk." - attributed to John von Neumann

    6. Well here goes, I missed you guys, been so busy I'm doing this between Denver & Limon. Thomas Sjoblom, is a trial lawyer and litigator in Washington D.C., specialized in financial fraud and insider trading. He represented Martin Armstrong for many years without getting payed because Armstrong was not allowed any money to pay for his defence.In Sjobloms point of view this was a case were not even one evidence was presented that Martin Armstrong himself was engaged in fraud.

      Republic New York is not the same as Princeton or Martin Armstrong. He was steamrolled. I was steamrolled, only they never could convict me of anything, which was worse in a way, because about every seven years they get after me and I have no idea why.
      I hate these hubris filled, cocky people.
      In 1981 at the age of twenty one Sam Walton and I were talking politics. I was green as pie. Sam is so ruthless his bird dog didn't even like him. He was always very powerful, even right now there is a vampire squid from Goldman Sachs as chairman, another quail hunting buddy running for (R) President, his 'show pony' at the shareholders meetings and former board of directors running for (D) President. In-depth study would take a long time and place. There's 400+ Chinese government officials in Washington DC hammering out the details to finish off the American workers with another whack job trade agreement and SDR the currency. Such a good neighbor.

      The only thing I have ever been convicted of in my life is 'criminal tresspass'. And I shouldn't have that misdemeanor. I was at a big shot Wal~Mart party and got rather intoxicated, meanwhile a sexually deviant member of management tried to... well anyway I left and got my car stuck in a muddy lot in Fayetteville, Ark and I was trying to get into my apartment that looked like but turned out not to be my apartment and was arrested. I knew too much about Wal~Mart, Sam's quail hunting buddies and their sexually deviant management. Then they try to railroad me with a serious theft at a store I was assigned to, had me polygraphed, fingerprinted etc..., it all had to be dropped after my father found a good lawyer.

      Other folks also have the bad luck of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

      This in-depth analysis by Martin is very good, brilliant even, no talking heads will ever have caught on. publicly

      This sudden deal with Iran is actually Part II of an attempt to cut off Russia and isolate it. This is part of Obama’s New Cold War against Russia. Part I was to prevent Syria from blocking a pipeline to be constructed through its territory to deliver Saudi gas to Europe to compete with Russia. Hence, we heard about the atrocities of the Syrian dictator and their people suddenly needed American troops to intervene, as did Iraq and Afghanistan. The entire Syrian folly was of course to overthrow the government to allow the pipeline to cut off Russia from selling gas to Europe. Cut off Russia’s energy market and you will starve the Bear.

  11. Yes, Martin is a denier, I once sent him an email saying I didn't agree. Well, TBT I flip flop nearly as much as Mitt Romney on the subject. All I'm really qualified to say is that we are seesawing and where we'll be if/when it settles down, I don't know. So many laughed at his last turning point prediction in '07, until they realized that was when the housing market began to slide.

    He doesn't reply like PCR almost always talks to me. Hey, I've been rode hard and put away wet by the government myself... so yes I know the story.

  12. From Leif Svalgaard at WUWT:

    Her paper was from 2012 and only went through 2004. Even if extended to 2008 what happened to the 7 years since then? Looks like curve-fitting of hand waves to me. Here is the strength of the axial and equatorial dipoles. Extrapolating past 2015 is just that: extrapolation with no physical basis.

    1. I like Dr Leif Svalgaard. He is happy to keep the Watties in line when they stray too far from established solar science.

  13. BTW I asked a solar researcher about this and was told that the Nature study I wrote about up above covers (Ineson et al 2015) pretty well every plausible TSI scenario (including what might happen if there were a reduction in solar radiation as postulated by Zharkova). So those Nature results can be considered a fair assessment of what could happen if the worst came to the worst.

    (That's how I understand it.)

  14. Here's Zharkova's (most recent (?) solar prediction peer reviewed) paper ...

    Prediction of solar activity from solar background magnetic field variations in cycles 21–23

    She shows future prediction (based on ~1.5 Hale (~22 year) cycles), but no past hindcast of SN (Figure 3 shows a fit to NOAA satellite era SN). Anyways looking at Figure 3 the period covered is 1977.5 to 2005, surely there is more recent data.

    Hindcast skill?

    Anyways the 60% figure appears to be with respect to SN and not TSI, from the last sentence of the abstract ...

    "The variations of the modulus summary of the two PCs in SBMF reveals a remarkable resemblance to the average number of sunspots in cycles 21–24 and to predictions of reduced sunspot numbers compared to cycle 24: 80% in cycle 25 and 40% in cycle 26."

    That is all.

  15. "Anthony hasn't mentioned any of the extreme weather of the past few weeks either."

    I don't think you are happy when Anthony makes remarks on weather. The weather is the weather..

    It is bloody cold (mild) here, and has been the whole summer (it started already in April, the winter was mild). Is this a point? It is just a current state of affairs. Now I know you worry a lot about the warm South Europe, but you know what? I want my share and will have a holiday in Wien, because they have all the nice weather this summer.

    Now if we'll have half a degree colder here I'm scared, because the difference between bearable and terrible is thin in the North. We used to have European nut trees (Corylus avellana) in Lapland after the last ice age four thousand years ago[1]; now it is all gone, and pine and spruce instead. Just a little more of this global 'warming' and I'm off and it won't be Antarctic.

    1) (sorry, you won't be able to read this. there's a summary in english in the end)

    Friendly, yet icy regards,

  16. WRT to questions as to whether there is a physical basis for this, the answer is yes. There is a steep temperature gradient through the convective outer layer of the sun. The lowest part of this layer is hot enough that the hydrogen an helium are fully ionised plasma. The top part is cooler and incompletely ionised, and the plasma here behaves a little differently to the hotter plasma below. This causes a partitioning, vaguely akin to different layers in our atmosphere. At least thats my limited understanding.

    It would not be surprising if there were separate dynamos in each layer, so the statements about solar behaviour are likely correct. But the rest is just embarassing...Not having a clue, so taking a guess? You better believe thats a paddlin'...

  17. Let's stick to the area that Prof. Valentina Zharkova know:
    - Astrophysics and modeling of the sun.
    The most important point of her interview was when she told us that Mars, Jupiter and Pluto are also going through a heating process. I believe that we humans can not influence these planets yet.

    1. Eduardo.

      Would you like to tell us where she got her evidence from?

      It seems odd to try and derive a change in the sun by measuring the other planets - it is easier just to measure the sun directly.

    2. If that was the most important point, maybe SkS can help her put that supposed warming into perspective:
      I especially like the fact that Jupiter's warming is *predicted*, not *observed* to occur. You'd think an astrophysicist would know that. Maybe that tells you something about her credibility.

    3. The assumption made here is that we can measure the temperature of Pluto from this distance, and work out what temperature it used to be so we can tell it's warming. Weather station readings, in contrast, are not to be trusted. Meanwhile whatever's warming Pluto is, due to the inverse square law, burning past us at 900 times the power while remaining undetected.

      it's a funny old Solar System, ain't it?

  18. Parodying Pres Kennedy. It's the sun, stupid!

    1. Um, that was Candidate/later President Clinton. Makes me wonder about the accuracy of the remainder of your remarks, but no doubt some of the knowledgeable people here will set us straight.


Instead of commenting as "Anonymous", please comment using "Name/URL" and your name, initials or pseudonym or whatever. You can leave the "URL" box blank. This isn't mandatory. You can also sign in using your Google ID, Wordpress ID etc as indicated. NOTE: Some Wordpress users are having trouble signing in. If that's you, try signing in using Name/URL or OpenID. Details here.

Click here to read the HotWhopper comment policy.